Lead tape placement qns

Just a question about racquet customisation. Why do some people place lead tape all around the racquet head instead of putting them at specific positions(3&9, 12 o'clock.etc). What effect does it have on the racquet?

Adding weight anywhere on the racquet increases it's MOI (moment of inertia) and overall weight. The specific locations are always counter balanced (around the axis of the grip), and placed based on player preference for any number of reasons - maneuverability, racquet head speed, power, control, etc.

Just a question about racquet customisation. Why do some people place lead tape all around the racquet head instead of putting them at specific positions(3&9, 12 o'clock.etc). What effect does it have on the racquet?

Click to expand...

That would make it head heavy - more power/heft -- less maneuverability.

Just a question about racquet customisation. Why do some people place lead tape all around the racquet head instead of putting them at specific positions(3&9, 12 o'clock.etc). What effect does it have on the racquet?

Click to expand...

Well, once we reach a certain point in our games, we have pretty dang big groundstrokes. Most rackets are in the SW1 category (the lower swingweights). Moving them up to SW2 status (high swingweights) adds control to our swings, as well as giving power and spin. No matter what, adding weight will pump up the swingweight (albeit to different levels based on WHERE you put it).

So basically, everyone that plays tennis on a high level and uses custom weighted rackets is eventually going to end up playing with ridiculously high swingweights (okay, ALMOST everyone; Verdasco is one of the exceptions). The difference is HOW they want to get there. Some people want rackets that are insanely stable and plow through the ball, giving insane amounts of power and control for anybody good enough to swing it around (like Sampras, Roddick, and Courier). Others like the rackets to be very easy to whip around, allowing them to use heavy amounts of wrist action in their shots and allowing them to generate unprecedented amounts of spin (like Rafter, Nadal and Federer).

To get insane amounts of stability and plow through on the ball, you need VERY high levels of mass on your racket so that you can barely feel the ball's "weight" on contact (you can still feel the ball extremely well, but you might notice a more muted response than before thanks to the added stability). But the more mass we add, the higher the swingweight. So if we do it wrong, we won't get as much mass as we want, and we'll already reach our ideal swingweight in the SW2 section. So these people will put the weights lower on their racket (closer to the center of the racket; 3&9, as well as around the throat or top of the grip for counterbalance). That way, they can put more weight on their rackets to reach the amount of power and plow through they want without exceeding their ideal swingweight specification. This is what we call a depolarized setup. It's what most pros used. 95% of pros (if not more) prior to the year 2000 used this kind of setup. A wood racket is essentially a depolarized racket, so 100% of people prior to graphite rackets used a depolarized setup.

Others like their rackets to be less hefty, while still having that nice, high swingweight. To do that, they want every bit of mass they add to increase the swingweight as much as possible, so that they add very little mass to the racket, but get that nice spike in swingweight. They will end up putting the weight near the top of the racket (under the bumper guard) and some inside the buttcap for counterbalance. But since at this point, people don't care too much about balance, most of the added weight goes under the bumper guard (I hear Nadal adds 9 grams under the bumper and 2 in the buttcap while all of Federer's added racket weight is under the bumper, which I'm guessing is 2.5-4.5 grams). These rackets have lower static weight and become more manageable and spin friendly. Also, since the weight is mainly distributed towards the ends of the rackets, it spins on it's axis better, allowing for even better access to spin and racket head speed. This is what we call a polarized setup. Nowadays, a lot more people are using this setup thanks to the lighter rackets out there. Also, this is the reason why we will see some pros with a ridiculously low racket mass.

Now, which setup is the best? That's up to personal preference, as stated before. I love both (currently using/trying a slightly polarized setup like Federer). A depolarized racket is the more conventional type of racket customization (as it's been around longer) but it's a little more difficult to do (overall, but it depends on the racket as well). It grants extra forgiveness, stability, and pop so most people should generally look to have this kind of setup. It's the best for aggressive baseline hitting, as well as for serve and volleying. If you want to take the ball on the rise, or are an aggressive returner (like Agassi and Blake; both of whom use a depolarized setup), then you'll love the stability and power this setup gives. The other one is better for people who feel like they have all the power, forgiveness, and stability they need, but are lacking in some spin and margin for their shots. This is where a polarized setup can help, because it really adds a lot of spin to your shots and gives you extra margin over the net to safely stay in points. Nadal uses this setup to great effectiveness, employing heavy spin off the forehand and serve, constantly pulling his opponents wide and out of position. Rafter liked it because his big weapon was his kick serve and athleticism. A polarized setup added extra kick and action to his serves. He would kick a high one up to the opponent's backhand, then use his athleticism and feel for the ball to put away volleys. Though, this caused him to be less effective on grass, where serve and volleyers should dominate (as you can guess, almost all serve and volleyers use a depolarized setup). However, I must say that I found the polarized setup to be more erratic overall. It becomes difficult to control the racket sometimes (because the power and spin might not always be as consistent due to lack of stability), but most of the time you'll get good results if you like to use heavy spin.

I agree. What a great write up about these different weight setups. Thanks for all that great info "XFull.".

So to summarize......added weight at 12 oclock and low on the handle (near the buttcap) is a polarized setup and Added more weight lower and in the middle of the racquet is a depolarized setup? You do polarized if you want to increase sw with the least amount of weight possible and you do depolarized if you want to add more weight overall in order to reach the same sw? Am I right so far?

So if we have 2 racquets of identical swingweight, but one has more mass near the top and the other has more mass in the handle and is more HL......which will have more power and plowthru? Wont the one with more weight near the top have more power amnd plow? It seems like if you had more weight in the handle and a very HL balance, you would need to provide more of your own power, since the hoop will feel very light and whippy. But with the polarised racquet, there will be more mass higher up and behind the contact point, so wont that translate into more power and plow?

I agree. What a great write up about these different weight setups. Thanks for all that great info "XFull.".

So to summarize......added weight at 12 oclock and low on the handle (near the buttcap) is a polarized setup and Added more weight lower and in the middle of the racquet is a depolarized setup? You do polarized if you want to increase sw with the least amount of weight possible and you do depolarized if you want to add more weight overall in order to reach the same sw? Am I right so far?

So if we have 2 racquets of identical swingweight, but one has more mass near the top and the other has more mass in the handle and is more HL......which will have more power and plowthru? Wont the one with more weight near the top have more power amnd plow? It seems like if you had more weight in the handle and a very HL balance, you would need to provide more of your own power, since the hoop will feel very light and whippy. But with the polarised racquet, there will be more mass higher up and behind the contact point, so wont that translate into more power and plow?

Click to expand...

The depolarized racket doesn't put all of the weight in the handle. It actually has most of the weight in the head at 3&9. This will add the power and overall plow through we are looking for in out groundstrokes. As counterbalance, we add some (or a lot, depending on what you feel works best) weight around the throat or the top of the handle. Someone suggested 7 inches above the buttcap, which works extremely well in my opinion. There is also an equation to find the "perfect counterbalance point" somewhere on this forum is you look up "How to depolarize your racket". I've added 20 grams at 3&9 and 14 grams at 7 inches above the buttcap on one of my K90s and it plays very well and has tremendous plow through with only maybe 10-15 more SW units compared to my polarized 12.5 ounce Yonex RDS 003.

If anything, a depolarized racket and a polarized racket can have the exact same balance and swingweight, while the depolarized racket can have far more mass.

Given two light rackets, I can easily produce two rackets with the same swingweight and balance, but the mass on the depolarized racket can be higher by about a full ounce, if not higher! One will produce noticeably more spin, while the other more power, stability, and plow through.

When making a depolarized racket, we're looking to increase swingweight as well, just in a far more conservative matter so we can add more effective mass without raising swingweight too rapidly, which will limit the amount of mass we can place on the racket. If you put all the weight in the handle, the center of mass will be so low that you might as well hit the ball with the handle instead of the strings. There really is no point to having an excessively headlight racket. Power comes from having weight in the head, and maneuverability comes from having weight in the top of the handle as counterbalance (how far up or down depends on the player).

You more or less have two basic options when adding 15 grams of lead to the head. You can put it under the bumper guard around the top of the hoop, or layer it at 3&9. Layering it at 3&9 will produce more power, while having it under the bumper gets it moving around faster (which is why I said it's more erratic overall, especially since to hit a good shot you need a loose arm). If you layered the lead at 3&9, the swingweight will be a little lower, and the racket will be more maneuverable, so you can add more weight (either at 3&9 again, or around the throat or handle as counterbalance) until the swingweights are matched. At this point, from the physics equations of F=MA and Momentum=MV^2, we can tell the new racket has far more power, stability, and plow through (it can more easily drive through the ball because it's more stable and has more power through contact). Also, since the weight is lower and closer to your hand, you can more easily control and direct the weight of the racket during the swing, allowing for better control and a more consistent contact (whereas the polarized racket can get all whippy and out of control sometimes).

When adding lead tape to the frame, you must always add lead to the head. There is no point to adding lead in the buttcap alone. It does nothing. It raises the swingweight (slightly), lowers the center of mass, raises mass in the most pointless manner, and it's biggest effects are mostly mental, where since you think your racket is more headlight, it will be more maneuverable. It will give you more heft in your hand when holding it, but it won't translate into power into the ball. To do that, you need the lead to be placed farther up and away from your hand. This is why I feel that adding weight to a head heavy frame is pointless. You can counterbalance it all you want by adding lead at the top of the handle, but you're better off finding a new racket that's headlight. You want to be able to add more weight to the head than to the buttcap/handle/throat. It's not always going to happen, but if you want the biggest power boost, that's how it's going to have to be.

When you add weight to the hoop, the mass isn't behind the ball. When you add it to 3&9, it's right on the center of the strings, allowing the weight to most effectively respond and react to the ball and push through it more effectively. This is where plow through comes from. Adding it to the top merely increases racket head speed due to a whippy feeling you get during the swing similar to a ball at the end of the string. The best description would be comparing a stick with a ball of mass at the very far end of the stick. To accurately control the stick with precision while swinging full force, more focus and strength is required. If you let it go (loosened up your arm/hand), the mass will pull the stick in the general direction your swing left it off at. Then if you swing a stick with the ball of mass in the center of the stick (or at least closer to your hand), it's easier to more precisely control the stick no matter how fast you swing, even with a loose arm and grip. This is why a depolarized racket has more plow through and stability (aside from the fact that weight at 3&9 help increase torsional stability; AKA resistance to twisting at impact), the weight is easier to precisely control and get behind the ball. This is also why (as I've said numerous times; sorry about that) a polarized racket is overall more erratic. If your swing is off by a little, the mass at the top of the frame will keep the racket going in that direction, magnifying your swing error. The spin it generates will keep it from going long most of the time, but it's still pretty inconsistent.

Headlight balance is great for intermediate players, but once you want some serious pop on your strokes, and your lightweight 11-12.5 ounce rackets don't generate enough punch anymore, you're going to have to sacrifice some of it for power. Once you reach 5.5+, balance doesn't matter, weight distribution does.

The reason people liked the K90 more than the previous Tour 90s was because of the newer weight distribution, which made it feel more maneuverable, have more pop and plow through, and go faster through the air even with the higher swingweight. And the reason people like the K88 more than the K90, is because the weight was reworked again, in such a way that power and spin are even more accessible regardless of the higher swingweight and mass! (You'll notice that even if you depolarize your racket heavily to such a degree it's meant only for flat hitters, you'll still find plenty of added spin thanks to the improved weight distribution.) The previous Tour 90s I'm guessing had most of the weight centralized near the top of the handle (right under or at where the Wilson W logo is, which could account for why the design had a longer pallet design than the PS85 and the K90). The K90 was reworked to move that weight more towards 3&9 (if not slightly higher) and maybe moving whatever's left of the mass closer to the buttcap. This explains the higher swingweight.

What really matters in making a racket the best that it can be is WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION. That and that alone is what makes a great racket what it is. Well... That and mass... But mass is useless if it's just slapped on randomly.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask them. Try to be as specific as possible, and I'll try to cut it down and be more concise next time I respond. >< Hopefully my English teacher will improve my writing skills by the end of the semester. But as you can guess, there's a lot more behind rackets and their performance than just their specs (unless we got far more detailed about the specs of the rackets).

Oh, and I took this out of the previous post (too long) cause it wasn't wholly relevant, but I still think it's rather interesting information (though I have no solid proof since I don't have a bunch of advanced equipment as well as Sampras' rackets and so on). It is purely theoretical (most of it), but I feel it's quite logical and it explains a lot of what is already confirmed and what I read on these boards (which isn't always true as we know when it comes to conspiracy theories of pro rackets).

//====================================//

The ProStaff Tour, which the n90 design is based off of, was meant for Pete Sampras. Sampras would place a lot weight around that general area where a majority of the ProStaff Tour's weight is centered as counterbalance for the lead he puts on the head (or at least Nate Ferguson did it). With this, Ferguson would have to put less lead in his racket and could just slap it on the head and be done with it. (Yes, Wilson will occasionally make rackets specifically designed for top pros and sell them to the public, which is a mistake since those rackets were incomplete and require lead to finish it.) This is another reason why the K90 is so popular - it's a finished product. Federer has been using that EXACT racket (specs, weight distribution, EVERYTHING) for 7 years now. Recently he seems to be adding a little bit more weight to it, but it's hardly a noticeable difference aside from more comfort (it could explain the recent pile up of errors though in the past few years; yes I said it wasn't a noticeable difference, but some people can feel the performance difference and I'm sure Federer is one of them). He probably did it in his attempt to create a heavier ball and win the French Open. Everything he's done in the past several years has all been for that. If he never cared, he'd still be ripping relatively flat, penetrating winners all over the place. Now he hits with far more spin and might have changed his racket setup slightly since 2006 to help that. All I really know though, is since his switch to the K90 (or him staying with the K90 but with the K90 paintjob, whatever you prefer), is that his groundstrokes are occasionally very erratic, which has pretty much never happened during his rise to power and his stay atop the ATP ladder. Also, sometime since the switch, he's been adding weight under the bumper guard (polarizing the racket, making it less stable as I mentioned). You put two and two together and you can logically infer these points that I have mentioned. If he stayed with a stock K90 (with tight quality control), he probably would still be playing as well as he did in 2006 (and still won the French Open without sacrificing the 2008 Australian Open, 2008 Wimbledon, and the recent 2009 US Open). But either way, he'd still get crushed by Nadal. Polarizing your racket only makes it worse against him. But at least he generates a heavier ball and still dominates a majority of the tour.

Wow.....XFull, you are the man! How did u get so knowledgeable on the subject, if u don't mind me asking?
The mods should sticky this thread for those that want to understand racquet weighting and balance.

If I understand correctly......only add weight to the tip (12 oclock) if u need more pop or snap in your serves. But the more you add to this point, the more erratic your control becomes.

So if you wanted to add lets say 15 g's to your racquet and keep balance the same, it sounds like the "preferred" way is to add about 6 g's to 3/9 and about 9 g's to the handle, about 7" above the buttcap (which would be about in the middle of where your top hand would be?).

Also, you never mention adding weight to 10/2 instead of 9/3?
Wouldn't 10/2 be a nice compromise to give you the plowthru of 9/3, with a little extra power?

Wow.....XFull, you are the man! How did u get so knowledgeable on the subject, if u don't mind me asking?
The mods should sticky this thread for those that want to understand racquet weighting and balance.

If I understand correctly......only add weight to the tip (12 oclock) if u need more pop or snap in your serves. But the more you add to this point, the more erratic your control becomes.

So if you wanted to add lets say 15 g's to your racquet and keep balance the same, it sounds like the "preferred" way is to add about 6 g's to 3/9 and about 9 g's to the handle, about 7" above the buttcap (which would be about in the middle of where your top hand would be?).

Also, you never mention adding weight to 10/2 instead of 9/3?
Wouldn't 10/2 be a nice compromise to give you the plowthru of 9/3, with a little extra power?

So.....

1) Depolarized = more plowthru and stability

2) Polarized = more power but less control

Click to expand...

For adding the 15 grams, you can go either way with that actually. 9 grams at the head or handle, it doesn't really matter. 9 at the head will produce more power, while 9 at the handle will be more manageable.

And you're right about the difference between depolarized and polarized, except that polarized doesn't necessarily straight out give more power. It gives more racket head acceleration. That can essentially equate to more power as power/force is generated from either (or both) increases in mass or velocity/acceleration. I'd prefer to keep it at polarized means more racket head speed (if you know how to use it right). Also, the control problem isn't as big of a factor as I might make it sound. Higher racket head speeds (especially at the tip) can be used to create more spin on the ball, resulting in more control. Your ability to accurately control the racket head at high speeds will surely go down, but as long as you use spin to give you margin it's going to be fine (but don't be too surprised if a few don't go your way, but with the spin it generates you'll get plenty of margin so you won't notice 99% of the times where it happens).

And 10&2 and 11&1 will give still give power/plow through and increased racket head speeds, though I prefer to stick to one side and go all out in that direction. But if you were going to do that, I suggest 10&2 since it doesn't reduce your racket head control as badly but will give you noticeable more momentum in the head. If you go to 11&1 you might as well put a strip of lead across the top of the hoop. I don't personally advocate a bunch of 3-5 inch strips at 12 to polarize a racket, I prefer a long strip that can actually be as long as 15 inches across the top of the hoop so the center of mass won't be raised as much and the racket won't become more difficult to control. Some people prefer it that way, and I'm not saying you shouldn't do it. Try it, it might work for you, but it doesn't work for me.

It all depends on what you need from adding weight. Sometimes it's not as straightforward as wanting more power. You might want more pop, but are want a hint more spin on your shots than a 3&9 setup will give, and are willing to sacrifice a little pop to get there. In that case, yes go for 10&2.

If you want more pop on your serves, I recommend lead at 3&9 unless you might want to get a little added spin and kick on you spin serves as well, then 10&2 might be more appropriate. I've never personally experimented with 10&2 but it should add more spin than a 3&9 setup although you will probably lose a little stability and power (probably not a noticeable loss though unless you add a lot of weight). Personally, a polarized setup messed with my serve the most. Granted the amount of spin and kick I got on slice and kick serves was truly amazing, but it was difficult to really control it and stay as consistent as I liked with it. Occasionally I'd get too much lift and send it long, or too much spin and send it short or into the net (but with a giant explosion off the court). Granted, I didn't stick with the racket and practice with it as much as I should have, which probably would've fixed the problem, but from an immediate racket switch standpoint, it was simply too erratic. Now, for groundstrokes, I don't think I missed a single topspin stroke long or into the net. I easily ripped the ball 2-4 feet over the net and had them all safely drop on or inside the baseline with no problem and had insane amounts of kick on them. My friend could actually consistently pull off drop shots with so much spin they landed next to the net and died on the bounce, if not going back into the net. And he ran me around all over the court using heavy spin to generate sharp angles to both sides of the court. Polarized setups are great for people that love to use heavy spin or those who look to add more spin to their games (and want to play with heavy spin). Playing flat with this racket is meaningless (and maybe risky as well, though I wouldn't know). So for serves, you'd really have to put some more spin on them to control them. You can still hit everything very quickly through the court, but you need to use more spin to control it and gain back the accuracy you lose. In the end though, you can hit just as hard, if not harder than before, but with much more spin and safety. You just won't get nearly as much pace as a depolarized racket. I mean, you can still hit flat groundstrokes and flat serves with plenty of pace, but it's not where the racket really shines for me. If you're going to specialize in that, might as well depolarize your racket.

When using a depolarized setup on serves, I could still generate plenty of spin (same if not more than usual) to drop second serves consistently into the court deep with the same amount (sometimes more) of action and kick. The only difference was that those second serves were moving through the court at least 10 mph faster. My friend tried serving to me with one of my depolarized rackets and me using the polarized racket, and I couldn't even push the ball a foot in front of me. The ball was just so heavy, AND it came in faster than normal. A big server playing with a depolarized racket doesn't really have to worry much about holding serve. They just bomb a big first serve, then finish off whatever floater comes back. It's part of the reason Sampras had such an easy time on serve. Maybe 20% of the reason. His racket was heavier than most, and as such (with the spin and pace he generated) people had a difficulty keeping their racket stable and plowing through the ball at contact. Playing with a depolarized racket, most first serves were service winners and most second serves were essentially slightly slower first serves with more kick (compared to me using my regular racket).

Actually though, if you made contact around where 10&2 is, you'd get more plow through than with a 3&9 setup. Most people generally make contact at 3&9 though. Nate said pros generally hit higher up on the stringbed (hence the placement of Federer's string savers), but I doubt that. Pictures and slow motion videos at contact show that the pros still hit almost exactly in the center aside from a few shots where they'll hit it closer to the top (intentionally or accidentally I'm not sure).

And generally I read a lot, paid attention in physics when we learned about force, conservation of momentum, and so on (stuff that can be applied to rackets), and I actually experiment a lot with racket customization. I have 2 heavily depolarized rackets at 13.8 ounces that generate tremendous amounts of power, 1 polarized racket at 12.5 ounces (without overgrip) that generates tremendous amounts of spin, 1 lightly depolarized racket at 12.9 ounces that has a lot of power and slightly increased spin, and 3 slightly depolarized K90s (that I'm testing out to decide if I'll switch to this setup or not; 2.5 grams under the bumper) that are more comfortable during swinging and generate a little more racket head speed and spin/lift. My dad also uses a heavily depolarized racket (that he personally made through months of trial and error to slowly add and remove weight until he found the perfect setup) weighing in at around 13.3 ounces.

And one final word, if you polarize a racket, the more weight you add, the less you'll notice the inconsistencies of the racket, but you can easily fix that with practice time.

Oh, and the bit about adding weight 7 inches above the buttcap came from a John Cathen I believe. It wasn't my idea. I tried it out and it worked beautifully (solved the problems I had with depolarizing a K90 because originally I was reluctant to put weight under the grip fearing bulkiness under the leather, which wasn't even noticeable). Here's a step by step of how to depolarize your racket.

His ideas differ slightly from mine, but he's probably got more experience in the subject. Then again, that might be why he's seen as such a crazy person to some people. :shock: That, or his nonstop ranting about concepts people don't understand because he doesn't explain them or their benefits too well. But he has a pretty solid grasp of what he's doing as well... Though he seems to change his racket setups far more than most people, and he goes nuts when a pro (like Federer) doesn't full on fit 100% into his beliefs of racket setups. When he found out Federer's racket wasn't as heavily polarized as he thought it was, he freaked out and went on a rampage.

Thanks for all that ^... very interesting indeed... you know what? I think this forum needs a 'lead tape doctor' - and you're just the man for the job!... so...

Dear Lead Tape Doctor!:wink:

I'm very interested in depolorized LT set ups for my AG 100 mid (need more stability and SW I think) and DNX 10 mid (needs more power on serve)... what would be the way to go re locations/amounts of LT, etc?

Thanks for all that ^... very interesting indeed... you know what? I think this forum needs a 'lead tape doctor' - and you're just the man for the job!... so...

Dear Lead Tape Doctor!:wink:

I'm very interested in depolorized LT set ups for my AG 100 mid (need more stability and SW I think) and DNX 10 mid (needs more power on serve)... what would be the way to go re locations/amounts of LT, etc?

Thanks,

R.

Click to expand...

The AG you would add lead at 9&3 and at top of handle, both stabilize the racket and the weight in the hoop will add SW.
The Volkl prob needs just a 2 or 3g at 12"

The reason people liked the K90 more than the previous Tour 90s was because of the newer weight distribution, which made it feel more maneuverable, have more pop and plow through, and go faster through the air even with the higher swingweight. And the reason people like the K88 more than the K90, is because the weight was reworked again, in such a way that power and spin are even more accessible regardless of the higher swingweight and mass! (You'll notice that even if you depolarize your racket heavily to such a degree it's meant only for flat hitters, you'll still find plenty of added spin thanks to the improved weight distribution.) The previous Tour 90s I'm guessing had most of the weight centralized near the top of the handle (right under or at where the Wilson W logo is, which could account for why the design had a longer pallet design than the PS85 and the K90). The K90 was reworked to move that weight more towards 3&9 (if not slightly higher) and maybe moving whatever's left of the mass closer to the buttcap. This explains the higher swingweight.

What really matters in making a racket the best that it can be is WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION. That and that alone is what makes a great racket what it is. Well... That and mass... But mass is useless if it's just slapped on randomly.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with what you're saying and find the above very interesting. Im a fan of the weight distribution in the pst90 and didnt like the distribution in the k90 finding the hoop a little too stiff. With the kps 88 it seems IMO like a return to the weight distribution of the pst90 yet with a higher SW. So it feels real soft in the hoop like the pst90 yet has the plow of the k90.
The kps feels like wilson have married the 2 rackets and added a little pop.

Thanks for all that ^... very interesting indeed... you know what? I think this forum needs a 'lead tape doctor' - and you're just the man for the job!... so...

Dear Lead Tape Doctor!:wink:

I'm very interested in depolorized LT set ups for my AG 100 mid (need more stability and SW I think) and DNX 10 mid (needs more power on serve)... what would be the way to go re locations/amounts of LT, etc?

Thanks,

R.

Click to expand...

Haha. I'm quite honored. I can't recommend amounts since that differs greatly from player to player. Depending on your age I'd recommend adding plenty of lead to get the thing into swingweight2 (SW2) status if you're at your peak, going into your peak, or are slightly after your peak (my dad manages such a setup and he's knocking on 50 soon). If you feel it's beyond your abilities and would tire out too soon, add near minimal lead to keep it well in the swingweight1 (SW1) category.

Though meaghan's suggestions are pretty solid. (more on that a little lower)

Swingweight1 - Basically, as you all know by now (hopefully), adding mass adds power and swingweight. So swingweight1 is basically where you've added mass and increased swingweight to the point where all your balls are at the depth you want them to be (around 3 feet inside the baseline).

Swingweight2 - As you keep adding weight to your ideal SW1 range, you'll find that the ball starts to go long. As you keep adding weight however, your swing will start to get slower and slower and as a result, the ball starts landing shorter and shorter until it finally comes back to the depth you once had in the SW1 status (around 3 feet inside the baseline). With this, you can swing out on every stroke, and still have the ball drop in no matter what (as long as you didn't make a giant swing error). Most pros generally use rackets in the SW2 category (though I wouldn't be surprised if the racket feels like it's in the SW1 category because they're so strong and used to the racket already).

Yep. That's pretty much it right there. Though I would also recommend trying lead at 3&9 instead of at 12. Try both, but one setup at a time. I find that with lead at 3&9, you get more power, but at 12 the racket really goes through the air better. Placing lead at 12 isn't exactly depolarizing your racket, but it's not a bad thing to experiment with.

I completely agree with what you're saying and find the above very interesting. Im a fan of the weight distribution in the pst90 and didnt like the distribution in the k90 finding the hoop a little too stiff. With the kps 88 it seems IMO like a return to the weight distribution of the pst90 yet with a higher SW. So it feels real soft in the hoop like the pst90 yet has the plow of the k90.
The kps feels like wilson have married the 2 rackets and added a little pop.

Click to expand...

I think you're right, since, like I already mentioned, the ProStaff Tour was meant for Pete Sampras, and so was the [K]ProStaff. Granted, they are both incomplete versions meant to make it easier on Nate to add lead to Sampras' rackets (needs less lead tape), but the [K]ProStaff is more of a finished product, like the [K]Six.One Tour. The ProStaff Tour was basically a ProStaff 85 with Sampras' counterbalance already added on the racket. But the weight was counterbalancing nothing, and Sampras used a lot of weight in the head, meaning the counterbalance weight was heavy as well. I'd be willing to bet that if the ProStaff Tour had enough weight added at 3&9, it'd be a fantastic racket! The [K]ProStaff is essentially just that! It's probably maintained most of the weight in the center of the racket like the ProStaff Tour, but moved the rest to the head and added a few more grams at the head (or JUST a few extra grams added to the head). This way, it felt more balanced and the racket became more complete. That'd explain why the feel of the [K]ProStaff still differs greatly from the [K]Six.One Tour - because the weight distribution is still far more similar to the ProStaff Tour, but with weight added to the head.

I think the added pop and plow through comes from the added weight in the head though, which is exactly what the ProStaff Tour needed.

Gee... Now I'm tempted to buy a [K]ProStaff and a ProStaff Tour to verify my theory. Though I'm sure most head light rackets can be fixed with lead if you know where to put it. Sadly, head heavy racket take a lot of lead to fix because of the fact they are pretty empty aside from the head, and even there they are pretty hollow. You can still salvage them, but I find it far better just to get a new racket, since trampoline effect can never be fixed except by stringing VERY tightly.

It's always better to have a lighter version of a pro's racket than a pro's platform racket that requires lead tape to finish, since most people won't spend the time to lead it up properly (or don't even know how) and will just whine about how poorly it plays.

I've already got a small amount of LT @ 3 and 9 on the AG100 (although no lead above handle, just a leather and OG down there), and a small amount of LT on the DNX mid @ 10 and 2. Something like 3.5 gs each on both frames. I obviously need to add more as suggested and in larger quantities then...

xFullCourt, just another question. Have you ever played with the kblade tour? Does it have any special counter weights as mentioned on the ProStaff Tour? I find the stock version kind of light and whippy is it wise to put lead tape at 3&9? THanks so much!

I've already got a small amount of LT @ 3 and 9 on the AG100 (although no lead above handle, just a leather and OG down there), and a small amount of LT on the DNX mid @ 10 and 2. Something like 3.5 gs each on both frames. I obviously need to add more as suggested and in larger quantities then...

Cheers again,

R.

Click to expand...

Hi Ross if you take the leather off the AG and use the difference in weight to the synthetic grip and add that to the top of the handle you may find some difference in stability as its located in that particular area rather than spread throughout the handle.

Haha. I'm quite honored. I can't recommend amounts since that differs greatly from player to player. Depending on your age I'd recommend adding plenty of lead to get the thing into swingweight2 (SW2) status if you're at your peak, going into your peak, or are slightly after your peak (my dad manages such a setup and he's knocking on 50 soon). If you feel it's beyond your abilities and would tire out too soon, add near minimal lead to keep it well in the swingweight1 (SW1) category.

Though meaghan's suggestions are pretty solid. (more on that a little lower)

Swingweight1 - Basically, as you all know by now (hopefully), adding mass adds power and swingweight. So swingweight1 is basically where you've added mass and increased swingweight to the point where all your balls are at the depth you want them to be (around 3 feet inside the baseline).

Swingweight2 - As you keep adding weight to your ideal SW1 range, you'll find that the ball starts to go long. As you keep adding weight however, your swing will start to get slower and slower and as a result, the ball starts landing shorter and shorter until it finally comes back to the depth you once had in the SW1 status (around 3 feet inside the baseline). With this, you can swing out on every stroke, and still have the ball drop in no matter what (as long as you didn't make a giant swing error). Most pros generally use rackets in the SW2 category (though I wouldn't be surprised if the racket feels like it's in the SW1 category because they're so strong and used to the racket already).

Yep. That's pretty much it right there. Though I would also recommend trying lead at 3&9 instead of at 12. Try both, but one setup at a time. I find that with lead at 3&9, you get more power, but at 12 the racket really goes through the air better. Placing lead at 12 isn't exactly depolarizing your racket, but it's not a bad thing to experiment with.

This has a good step by step method of how to depolarize your racket, including trial and error procedures as well as counterbalancing. Check it out. I really can't put it up much better than that.

I think you're right, since, like I already mentioned, the ProStaff Tour was meant for Pete Sampras, and so was the [K]ProStaff. Granted, they are both incomplete versions meant to make it easier on Nate to add lead to Sampras' rackets (needs less lead tape), but the [K]ProStaff is more of a finished product, like the [K]Six.One Tour. The ProStaff Tour was basically a ProStaff 85 with Sampras' counterbalance already added on the racket. But the weight was counterbalancing nothing, and Sampras used a lot of weight in the head, meaning the counterbalance weight was heavy as well. I'd be willing to bet that if the ProStaff Tour had enough weight added at 3&9, it'd be a fantastic racket! The [K]ProStaff is essentially just that! It's probably maintained most of the weight in the center of the racket like the ProStaff Tour, but moved the rest to the head and added a few more grams at the head (or JUST a few extra grams added to the head). This way, it felt more balanced and the racket became more complete. That'd explain why the feel of the [K]ProStaff still differs greatly from the [K]Six.One Tour - because the weight distribution is still far more similar to the ProStaff Tour, but with weight added to the head.

I think the added pop and plow through comes from the added weight in the head though, which is exactly what the ProStaff Tour needed.

Gee... Now I'm tempted to buy a [K]ProStaff and a ProStaff Tour to verify my theory. Though I'm sure most head light rackets can be fixed with lead if you know where to put it. Sadly, head heavy racket take a lot of lead to fix because of the fact they are pretty empty aside from the head, and even there they are pretty hollow. You can still salvage them, but I find it far better just to get a new racket, since trampoline effect can never be fixed except by stringing VERY tightly.

It's always better to have a lighter version of a pro's racket than a pro's platform racket that requires lead tape to finish, since most people won't spend the time to lead it up properly (or don't even know how) and will just whine about how poorly it plays.

Click to expand...

(BOLD 1) I was just referring to Ross' Volkl here with him needing a bit more pop rather than depolarisation.

(BOLD 2) I have both and have taken the leather off both rackets to have some room to play with. Im not feeling like the 88 actually needs any added lead as like you said its more of the finished article but i have added led to the pst90 but at 12". I think I will add a little more weight at 9&3 rather than 12 and see how your theory holds out. I'll let you know. I can add more weight there adding power and plow without raising the SW as much as at 12.

Second, to xFull (Dr. Lead Tape) or anyone else, I have a few follow up questions. If I put 2 grams at 12 o'clock, but also put 2 grams at 9 o'clock and 2 grams at 3 o'clock, is this essentially the same as "putting lead all around" the hoop? Does this negate any benefit of either the depolarized or polarized set up? Or does it give you some of the benefits of each? I'm counterbalancing these weights with lead in the handle, which is mostly on the grip 7" above the buttcap, in order to maintain HL balance. If it's okay to keep lead at all three places on the hoop (4 grams total at 9 and 3 & 2 grams at 12). Would this make it a primarily depolarized set up with a little more racquet head speed and spin? Any proper proportion for this kind of set up, such as putting 3 grams at 9 and 3 o'clock with 1-2 grams at 12 o'clock? Or is it just better to stick with one set up and sacrifice a little? I guess I kinda want it all! A bump up in swing weight, stability, and spin, while maintaining maneuverability and minimizing the increase in static weight.

BTW, for some reason, putting lead just at 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock wasn't great for me. Hasn't been good for me with any racquet I've tried. Maybe because the sweet spot moved?

Unfortunately, I'm trying to figure this out with as little tinkering as possible because I have Head CAP grommets and would love to be able to hide the lead under them before the grommets get too flared to re-use.

Yep. That's pretty much it right there. Though I would also recommend trying lead at 3&9 instead of at 12. Try both, but one setup at a time. I find that with lead at 3&9, you get more power, but at 12 the racket really goes through the air better. Placing lead at 12 isn't exactly depolarizing your racket, but it's not a bad thing to experiment with.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I can't edit my posts yet. I guess my questions above go to this. Does this suggestion mean we really shouldn't mix the two setups at all....or simply just to try each setup separately to see the effects of each?

When you guys speak of adding weight at 7" above the butt end of the handle, is that the spot just above where your hands would be?
And why is that better than adding it near the butt end?

Click to expand...

It adds stability. If you think of the vibration or shock from the ball on thie strings resonating down the racket then weight at the top of the handle should reduce the shock and vibration of the frame before meeting the hand.

It adds stability. If you think of the vibration or shock from the ball on thie strings resonating down the racket then weight at the top of the handle should reduce the shock and vibration of the frame before meeting the hand.

Im sure i couldve explained that better ha!

Click to expand...

Meaghan........you used to always recommend adding lead just above the buttcap. Did you recently switch to the "top of the handle" and which do you like better?

Meaghan........you used to always recommend adding lead just above the buttcap. Did you recently switch to the "top of the handle" and which do you like better?

Click to expand...

Jack I always advocated weight top of handle as I thought thats where it had the best affect IMO. Like the posts from xFCTx I was just refering to polarised and depolarised customisations to show that there was a choice.

I started reading J cauthen posts first and tried that and liked the affect Then I read travlerajm who advocated extreme polarisation and tried that but could never come to terms with it. I, like Travlerajm went on to adding weight top of handle and 12" a mix of both theories. It worked great with the OPT and in an extreme version the LM Rad but not so with the heavier pro staffs.
I dont have any weight on the kps88 as it seems to have the weight distribution im looking for.

1. has anybody found that they get a massive bulge from the lead tape at 7inches? suppose it would help to start off with a more headlight racket to minimize the amount you have to add there?

2. What exactly is the weight range of SW2? say 340s 350s+ ?

cheers

Click to expand...

I had 20g top of handle spread over a few cm it did bulge a little but i have a 1HBH and it didnt affect me. Must have been a slightly heavier lead too.
It had more affect on an even balance racket making it more HL (ie the LM Rad went from 2or3pts HL to 9pts HL and had a greater affect due to the amount of weight placed there as its such a tinny frame. I added about 10g to 10 &2 and it worked a dream. The SW would have been 350 or so.
I think SW2 when travlerajm was discussing it was in the high 300s.
If you have a spare week or so get the threads up! A lot of posts unfortunately have been deleted tho.

1. has anybody found that they get a massive bulge from the lead tape at 7inches? suppose it would help to start off with a more headlight racket to minimize the amount you have to add there?

Click to expand...

Wouldn't 7 inches up be about where your top hand would end (on a 2HBH)? I just put both my hands on a ruler and it measured about 7 inches. So just go a bit higher so the lead is ABOVE where your top hand would be. Then you won't feel the lead. I dont think a little higher than 7 inches would matter that much?

Wouldn't 7 inches up be about where your top hand would end (on a 2HBH)? I just put both my hands on a ruler and it measured about 7 inches. So just go a bit higher so the lead is ABOVE where your top hand would be. Then you won't feel the lead. I dont think a little higher than 7 inches would matter that much?

Click to expand...

In that general area is fine IMO.
I did one racket it was a grip size 2 leaded it up then added a normal grip until it reached the lead then added a replacemnt grip over it all to make it a grip size 4 without any worries about it sticking out.
Thats all OK if you have a small grip to customise!

I had 20g top of handle spread over a few cm it did bulge a little but i have a 1HBH and it didnt affect me. Must have been a slightly heavier lead too.
It had more affect on an even balance racket making it more HL (ie the LM Rad went from 2or3pts HL to 9pts HL and had a greater affect due to the amount of weight placed there as its such a tinny frame. I added about 10g to 10 &2 and it worked a dream. The SW would have been 350 or so.
I think SW2 when travlerajm was discussing it was in the high 300s.
If you have a spare week or so get the threads up! A lot of posts unfortunately have been deleted tho.

Click to expand...

well at the moment i'm using a lm rad and what i've done is stuck a chunk of blue tac (xD) into the holes in the bottom and lead tape from like the top of the silver ridge down to 3/9 on both sides. Weighing in at about 335g (with 17g strings, was 340 with 16g i think dodgy scale probably).

Is the aim of leadtape at 7 to maximise ploughthrough? If it is to reduce shock I think the blue tack is doing its job quite well

Just did a search -> 'SW2 is defined as a swingweight above 360, and is in the 'Maximum Spin Zone.' The 'Maximum Power Zone' is in the 350-360 range, according to TravlerAjm, but at that SW your spin will start to seriously lose out.'

For refernce i've copied what was in the link:

"The problem is likely that you placed the lead too low in the hoop (I presume that you centered the hoop weight at the 3&9 position, giving you a SW of about 350). A swingweight between 350 and 360 is in the max-power zone, where it's hard to generate spin, but easy to hit with power. To get into the heavy ball zone, you need to get your swingweight up to 365 or more. E.g., Nadal's swingweight is about 370.

Try shifting the 15 grams of hoop lead upward so that it is only in the top half of the hoop, centered at about 24" from the butt. Then when you test it, if it is overpowered, add a gram or so more. And if it is underpowered, then subtract a gram or two.

Also, you'll need to learn how to let the racquet do the work by using a high backswing on groundstrokes. You can't wrist the ball with a swingweight that high." -TravlerAjm

Gonna have to take into account this customization when i get my next racket ~~ looking at youtek rad pro which is probably a v. good starting platform for juicing to SW2. PST hmm gonna have to start some arm strengthening exercises:twisted:

Wouldn't 7 inches up be about where your top hand would end (on a 2HBH)? I just put both my hands on a ruler and it measured about 7 inches. So just go a bit higher so the lead is ABOVE where your top hand would be. Then you won't feel the lead. I dont think a little higher than 7 inches would matter that much?

xFullCourt, just another question. Have you ever played with the kblade tour? Does it have any special counter weights as mentioned on the ProStaff Tour? I find the stock version kind of light and whippy is it wise to put lead tape at 3&9? THanks so much!

Click to expand...

Sorry. Stopped at the nBlade 98, nBlade Oversize, and [K]Blade 98. I'd love to try the tour out though. Sadly nobody I know has one.

Second, to xFull (Dr. Lead Tape) or anyone else, I have a few follow up questions. If I put 2 grams at 12 o'clock, but also put 2 grams at 9 o'clock and 2 grams at 3 o'clock, is this essentially the same as "putting lead all around" the hoop? Does this negate any benefit of either the depolarized or polarized set up? Or does it give you some of the benefits of each? I'm counterbalancing these weights with lead in the handle, which is mostly on the grip 7" above the buttcap, in order to maintain HL balance. If it's okay to keep lead at all three places on the hoop (4 grams total at 9 and 3 & 2 grams at 12). Would this make it a primarily depolarized set up with a little more racquet head speed and spin? Any proper proportion for this kind of set up, such as putting 3 grams at 9 and 3 o'clock with 1-2 grams at 12 o'clock? Or is it just better to stick with one set up and sacrifice a little? I guess I kinda want it all! A bump up in swing weight, stability, and spin, while maintaining maneuverability and minimizing the increase in static weight.

BTW, for some reason, putting lead just at 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock wasn't great for me. Hasn't been good for me with any racquet I've tried. Maybe because the sweet spot moved?

Unfortunately, I'm trying to figure this out with as little tinkering as possible because I have Head CAP grommets and would love to be able to hide the lead under them before the grommets get too flared to re-use.

Click to expand...

I'd stick to one setup, then once completed with that setup, add lead as necessary to fix any problems not yet already solved. So I'd depolarize it, then add lead at 12 if necessary.

I've polarized a racket heavily, then added a little lead at 3&9 to increase torsional stability. It worked perfectly.

A depolarized setup with give you extra spin anyways if you have enough lead at 3&9. You probably won't notice it until you hit about 6 or 8 grams total. The idea is to get the racket up to your ideal swingweight range. If you've added all the mass you needed but can still add weight, either keep adding to the same places, or place it at 12 until it feels perfect (since that adds the most swingweight with the least increase in mass).

And yes, lead at 10&2 will raise the "sweet spot" a little, as does placing lead at 12, but at least contact is still in line with where the lead is placed, so it isn't as noticeable. That's why I generally like sticking to lead at 3&9 or across the top of the hoop.

And if you want to keep maneuverability, I say stay away from lead at 12 as much as possible. You can still put it there, but refrain from using excess lead there, since as I said before, it will result in the racket being more difficult to precisely control, which is the key to hitting your best shots (and trick shots) under conditions where you shouldn't be able to. Federer's racket head control is better than anyone else's I've ever seen, and we know what he can do with the ball, even on the full stretch.

Sorry, I can't edit my posts yet. I guess my questions above go to this. Does this suggestion mean we really shouldn't mix the two setups at all....or simply just to try each setup separately to see the effects of each?

Click to expand...

I suggest trying each separately until you understand what each setup will do for you. From there, pick the one you liked best, go as far as you can with it (as far as you feel is improving your game), then you can mix in a little from the other setup. Don't try to merge both setups together 50/50. I've tried and failed epically. A 13.5 ounce super polarized racket with mega weights at 3&9 didn't play nearly as well as I expected. You'll notice that the setup you prefer will give you what you want in the end anyways. Both give power and spin, just in different ways and different amounts. Torsional stability isn't exactly given to a polarized racket though so in the end I think most polarized rackets should have some lead at 3&9 anyways for stability unless they racket was already very stable. (I used a RDS003, which isn't really that stable to begin with, especially when polarized to such a degree.)

It adds stability. If you think of the vibration or shock from the ball on thie strings resonating down the racket then weight at the top of the handle should reduce the shock and vibration of the frame before meeting the hand.

Im sure i couldve explained that better ha!

Click to expand...

It also makes it feel more maneuverable since there's plenty of heft right above your hand. Same idea as a polarized racket adding racket head speed from the whippy kind of effect, only it's closer to your hand so it's easier to control.

Also, lead in the buttcap (unless placed several inches above the buttcap location) does nothing aside from add a feeling of heft in your hand (since there's more weight in the area where you hold it). It will make it a slightly more solid pivot point (good for polarized rackets), but overall it doesn't do that much overall to performance. Power on a racket comes from the mass that is close to and behind the ball at contact. That's why the depolarized racket has more power - the counterweight is closer to contact than for a polarized racket. A depolarized racket places all/most of the weight as close to contact as possible without making it too unwieldy, which generally results in most of the weight being near the center of the racket.

I had 20g top of handle spread over a few cm it did bulge a little but i have a 1HBH and it didnt affect me. Must have been a slightly heavier lead too.
It had more affect on an even balance racket making it more HL (ie the LM Rad went from 2or3pts HL to 9pts HL and had a greater affect due to the amount of weight placed there as its such a tinny frame. I added about 10g to 10 &2 and it worked a dream. The SW would have been 350 or so.
I think SW2 when travlerajm was discussing it was in the high 300s.
If you have a spare week or so get the threads up! A lot of posts unfortunately have been deleted tho.

Click to expand...

I had 14 grams and it's not even noticeable.

Swingweight2 depends on the player. I've already explained how to find it. Pros have it at around 370. For rec players, 350 might be well into swingweight2 already.

Wouldn't 7 inches up be about where your top hand would end (on a 2HBH)? I just put both my hands on a ruler and it measured about 7 inches. So just go a bit higher so the lead is ABOVE where your top hand would be. Then you won't feel the lead. I dont think a little higher than 7 inches would matter that much?

Click to expand...

It differs from player to player. If I used a two handed backhand, I would prefer the lead tape to be a little higher up. Sadly, this raises the swingweight quite noticeable. If you could settle for a monster forehand and having your backhand being mainly driven by your left hand (like it should) to get the weight through the ball, you should be fine. Though yes you should experiment with it a little higher up to see how it works. But I think the result would be slightly detrimental to your forehand and serve, unless you can manage that swingweight. If you can, totally go for it! It will give you more power!

Hey thanks for your reply, its ok though. haha Anyone here has experience and may like to share?

Click to expand...

Honestly, I doubt it does have that counterweight built in though. Like I said, the ProStaff Tour was meant for Sampras. The counterweighting was meant for Sampras' depolarized setup.

The [K]Blade Tour is more of a finished product racket (already has the weight distributed correctly, not overly favoring one position over others).

If it feels too whippy, I would suggest depolarizing it with some lead at 3&9 and counterbalance weight around the top of the handle, just like a standard depolarized setup. That'll make it feel more like a solid bat that can really smack through the ball.

I'd recommend leading it up with 10-12 grams, evenly distributing it at 3&9 and above the handle. This means 5-6 grams up at 3&9 and 5-6 above the handle (or top of the handle under the grip tape). From there, if that's not enough, add more to the head 1 or 2 grams at a time. If it feels too heavy, then remove some of the lead at 3&9 and move it to the counterbalance point until you feel like you've got it swinging in sync with your arm (you'll know the feeling; it's like the racket feels perfect in your hand when swinging it and on the court if follows your hand and arm perfectly like an extension of it). It takes a bunch of trial and error to find the exact perfect setup, but once you get there it's worth it (until your racket goes out of production). :evil:

For adding the 15 grams, you can go either way with that actually. 9 grams at the head or handle, it doesn't really matter. 9 at the head will produce more power, while 9 at the handle will be more manageable.

And you're right about the difference between depolarized and polarized, except that polarized doesn't necessarily straight out give more power. It gives more racket head acceleration. That can essentially equate to more power as power/force is generated from either (or both) increases in mass or velocity/acceleration. I'd prefer to keep it at polarized means more racket head speed (if you know how to use it right). Also, the control problem isn't as big of a factor as I might make it sound. Higher racket head speeds (especially at the tip) can be used to create more spin on the ball, resulting in more control. Your ability to accurately control the racket head at high speeds will surely go down, but as long as you use spin to give you margin it's going to be fine (but don't be too surprised if a few don't go your way, but with the spin it generates you'll get plenty of margin so you won't notice 99% of the times where it happens).

And 10&2 and 11&1 will give still give power/plow through and increased racket head speeds, though I prefer to stick to one side and go all out in that direction. But if you were going to do that, I suggest 10&2 since it doesn't reduce your racket head control as badly but will give you noticeable more momentum in the head. If you go to 11&1 you might as well put a strip of lead across the top of the hoop. I don't personally advocate a bunch of 3-5 inch strips at 12 to polarize a racket, I prefer a long strip that can actually be as long as 15 inches across the top of the hoop so the center of mass won't be raised as much and the racket won't become more difficult to control. Some people prefer it that way, and I'm not saying you shouldn't do it. Try it, it might work for you, but it doesn't work for me.

It all depends on what you need from adding weight. Sometimes it's not as straightforward as wanting more power. You might want more pop, but are want a hint more spin on your shots than a 3&9 setup will give, and are willing to sacrifice a little pop to get there. In that case, yes go for 10&2.

If you want more pop on your serves, I recommend lead at 3&9 unless you might want to get a little added spin and kick on you spin serves as well, then 10&2 might be more appropriate. I've never personally experimented with 10&2 but it should add more spin than a 3&9 setup although you will probably lose a little stability and power (probably not a noticeable loss though unless you add a lot of weight). Personally, a polarized setup messed with my serve the most. Granted the amount of spin and kick I got on slice and kick serves was truly amazing, but it was difficult to really control it and stay as consistent as I liked with it. Occasionally I'd get too much lift and send it long, or too much spin and send it short or into the net (but with a giant explosion off the court). Granted, I didn't stick with the racket and practice with it as much as I should have, which probably would've fixed the problem, but from an immediate racket switch standpoint, it was simply too erratic. Now, for groundstrokes, I don't think I missed a single topspin stroke long or into the net. I easily ripped the ball 2-4 feet over the net and had them all safely drop on or inside the baseline with no problem and had insane amounts of kick on them. My friend could actually consistently pull off drop shots with so much spin they landed next to the net and died on the bounce, if not going back into the net. And he ran me around all over the court using heavy spin to generate sharp angles to both sides of the court. Depolarized setups are great for people that love to use heavy spin or those who look to add more spin to their games (and want to play with heavy spin). Playing flat with this racket is meaningless (and maybe risky as well, though I wouldn't know). So for serves, you'd really have to put some more spin on them to control them. You can still hit everything very quickly through the court, but you need to use more spin to control it and gain back the accuracy you lose. In the end though, you can hit just as hard, if not harder than before, but with much more spin and safety. You just won't get nearly as much pace as a depolarized racket. I mean, you can still hit flat groundstrokes and flat serves with plenty of pace, but it's not where the racket really shines for me. If you're going to specialize in that, might as well depolarize your racket.

When using a depolarized setup on serves, I could still generate plenty of spin (same if not more than usual) to drop second serves consistently into the court deep with the same amount (sometimes more) of action and kick. The only difference was that those second serves were moving through the court at least 10 mph faster. My friend tried serving to me with one of my depolarized rackets and me using the polarized racket, and I couldn't even push the ball a foot in front of me. The ball was just so heavy, AND it came in faster than normal. A big server playing with a depolarized racket doesn't really have to worry much about holding serve. They just bomb a big first serve, then finish off whatever floater comes back. It's part of the reason Sampras had such an easy time on serve. Maybe 20% of the reason. His racket was heavier than most, and as such (with the spin and pace he generated) people had a difficulty keeping their racket stable and plowing through the ball at contact. Playing with a depolarized racket, most first serves were service winners and most second serves were essentially slightly slower first serves with more kick (compared to me using my regular racket).

Actually though, if you made contact around where 10&2 is, you'd get more plow through than with a 3&9 setup. Most people generally make contact at 3&9 though. Nate said pros generally hit higher up on the stringbed (hence the placement of Federer's string savers), but I doubt that. Pictures and slow motion videos at contact show that the pros still hit almost exactly in the center aside from a few shots where they'll hit it closer to the top (intentionally or accidentally I'm not sure).

And generally I read a lot, paid attention in physics when we learned about force, conservation of momentum, and so on (stuff that can be applied to rackets), and I actually experiment a lot with racket customization. I have 2 heavily depolarized rackets at 13.8 ounces that generate tremendous amounts of power, 1 polarized racket at 12.5 ounces (without overgrip) that generates tremendous amounts of spin, 1 lightly depolarized racket at 12.9 ounces that has a lot of power and slightly increased spin, and 3 slightly depolarized K90s (that I'm testing out to decide if I'll switch to this setup or not; 2.5 grams under the bumper) that are more comfortable during swinging and generate a little more racket head speed and spin/lift. My dad also uses a heavily depolarized racket (that he personally made through months of trial and error to slowly add and remove weight until he found the perfect setup) weighing in at around 13.3 ounces.

And one final word, if you polarize a racket, the more weight you add, the less you'll notice the inconsistencies of the racket, but you can easily fix that with practice time.

Oh, and the bit about adding weight 7 inches above the buttcap came from a John Cathen I believe. It wasn't my idea. I tried it out and it worked beautifully (solved the problems I had with depolarizing a K90 because originally I was reluctant to put weight under the grip fearing bulkiness under the leather, which wasn't even noticeable). Here's a step by step of how to depolarize your racket.

His ideas differ slightly from mine, but he's probably got more experience in the subject. Then again, that might be why he's seen as such a crazy person to some people. :shock: That, or his nonstop ranting about concepts people don't understand because he doesn't explain them or their benefits too well. But he has a pretty solid grasp of what he's doing as well... Though he seems to change his racket setups far more than most people, and he goes nuts when a pro (like Federer) doesn't full on fit 100% into his beliefs of racket setups. When he found out Federer's racket wasn't as heavily polarized as he thought it was, he freaked out and went on a rampage.

Click to expand...

Excellent stuff man, thanks alot. But I thought you said polarized frames give more spin? Right there you said depolarized frames are great for people who use heavy spin. Thanks!

It differs from player to player. If I used a two handed backhand, I would prefer the lead tape to be a little higher up. Sadly, this raises the swingweight quite noticeable. If you could settle for a monster forehand and having your backhand being mainly driven by your left hand (like it should) to get the weight through the ball, you should be fine. Though yes you should experiment with it a little higher up to see how it works. But I think the result would be slightly detrimental to your forehand and serve, unless you can manage that swingweight. If you can, totally go for it! It will give you more power!

Click to expand...

So putting lead 7" from the end is only for players with a 1HBH? Why would moving it up maybe 1" make it that much different? Also, why would that RAISE the SW since the weight is closer to the center? Would I be better off putting the weight just above the buttcap and also at 3/9? What do you recommend?

Also, wouldn't the ultimate in depolarising a racquet be to just add all the weight at the throat?

Ok in after skimming through the posts so far, I'm starting to think information overload...granted I think I just need to read up more on racquet customizing techniques. So specific to myself, I have a collection of Head Radicals and obviously the post 1998 ones have all gradually become lighter. So if I wanted to make one of the newer ones feel like the older classic ones in heft and swing weight, where would be the best places to put lead tape and how much of it?

2) You gave us a link to traverajm "how to set your rac. like an ATP pro"

In step 6 is a formula where to find the balance point: R=44,57/sqrt(M)

I have one rac. Prince EXO3 Rebel 95 where this formula works together with lead at 7" from butt perfectly. By the way I have 12g at 52, 10g at 7" that brings the rac. to an overall weight of 379g (13.37), 310mm bal. point(10.4HL)
and a SW of 356. This must be an excellent depoarized setup. So far so good!

With most of other rac. you can´t use this formula exactly, because bringing the SW around 355, reconmend counterbalance lead, directly to the butt cap and this is not the idea of a depolarized setup!

My question now:
What is more important?
) bringing the rac. in the near of SW 355, counterbalance at 7", and have a bal. point of about 320mm (7pts HL) or
) following the formula but then you will acieve only SW in the 340 range or less?

Yes, excellent info from xFull...So if I understand this correctly, if I were to try to make one of the newer lighter Head Radicals feel like one of the older classic ones heftwise, I would want to put lead tape at 3&9 and top of the handle? I remember reading here how someone was asking what newer racquets would make a good replacement for an older Head Radical and someone else recommended the Liquidmetal Radical, but to add lead tape to it...though they never explained where on the racquet and how much.

So putting lead 7" from the end is only for players with a 1HBH? Why would moving it up maybe 1" make it that much different? Also, why would that RAISE the SW since the weight is closer to the center? Would I be better off putting the weight just above the buttcap and also at 3/9? What do you recommend?

Also, wouldn't the ultimate in depolarising a racquet be to just add all the weight at the throat?

Click to expand...

Theoretically yes, but at the same time you can also say the absolute ultimate is to put it all in the buttcap. Like I said, weight at 3&9 is the best way to get extra power and plow through. From there, you add counterbalance. If all the weight is added to the throat, you aren't maximizing power. The goal is to get the mass you want while reaching the swingweight you want at the same time, but at the same time, you want real results for doing this, otherwise why do it right? That's why you add lead to the head and stop before you reach your swingweight goal, then counterbalance since that will add swingweight as well (though not nearly as much).

And swingweight increases anytime you add lead anywhere on the racket. The farther up it is though, the higher the swingweight increase. If you want to experiment, put 20 grams in the buttcap, and swing it. Then take out that 20 grams, and put 20 grams at 12 and swing it. You'll notice the weight at 12 significantly increases the amount of weight you feel when you swing the racket.

And 7" above the buttcap can be used by anyone. I personally find anything higher up makes it more difficult on the serve and forehand, but some people can easily handle it, and for them I either suggest more lead at 7" above the buttcap, or stick with the lead higher up at the same amount. Really though, if you play a two handed backhand it shouldn't be that much of a problem. The weight is still closer to the contact point than the buttcap, which will give you more power than putting the weight in the buttcap. And one inch will be noticeable, but probably not huge. 3 or 4 will be pretty big though, depending on how much you put there. I used 10+ grams, so every inch of difference is quite significant to the resulting feel and swingweight.

Ok in after skimming through the posts so far, I'm starting to think information overload...granted I think I just need to read up more on racquet customizing techniques. So specific to myself, I have a collection of Head Radicals and obviously the post 1998 ones have all gradually become lighter. So if I wanted to make one of the newer ones feel like the older classic ones in heft and swing weight, where would be the best places to put lead tape and how much of it?

Click to expand...

It depends. Has the balance changed at all? How much weight has it lost? How has the performance been affected?

If you could measure the mass, balance, and swingweight of both rackets as well as describe as accurately as possible the difference you notice in power, spin generation, plow through, stability, and so on. I think mass, balance, and performance should suffice. Swingweight IS important, but it's not as straightforward to calculate as the rest unless you have a machine that measures it.

2) You gave us a link to traverajm "how to set your rac. like an ATP pro"

In step 6 is a formula where to find the balance point: R=44,57/sqrt(M)

I have one rac. Prince EXO3 Rebel 95 where this formula works together with lead at 7" from butt perfectly. By the way I have 12g at 52, 10g at 7" that brings the rac. to an overall weight of 379g (13.37), 310mm bal. point(10.4HL)
and a SW of 356. This must be an excellent depoarized setup. So far so good!

With most of other rac. you can´t use this formula exactly, because bringing the SW around 355, reconmend counterbalance lead, directly to the butt cap and this is not the idea of a depolarized setup!

My question now:
What is more important?
) bringing the rac. in the near of SW 355, counterbalance at 7", and have a bal. point of about 320mm (7pts HL) or
) following the formula but then you will acieve only SW in the 340 range or less?

Click to expand...

Could you clarify on the section I bolded please? Are you talking 52 centimeters (about 25-26 inches) up from the buttcap? lol

I've heard about problems with that equation as well, where the racket is already depolarized (meaning the racket company made a good racket with a good setup in the weight distribution). The thing when you try to depolarize a racket using this procedure is that since the polar moment of inertia is already low, to lower it the weight has to be placed lower. Sadly, this results in less power although the general goal is achieved. In such a scenario, I say just build up on where it already is instead of trying to lower it. This is why 7" above the buttcap works so well for most people. It's a place where heavy amounts of added weight is still very manageable while still high up enough to get a little more power on the ball.

I say if you know what your final swingweight and mass you want to have, then go for that, because there's pretty much only one way to get there.

If you follow the guidelines he posted, there are troubleshooting steps at the end as well as a note to not fear tweaking it to whatever you feel works the best in your hands. I personally start off with weight in the head and test out how it feels. If it feels good, then I'll counterbalance it (since it doesn't increase swingweight by that much). Once I'm done counterbalancing it, I modify how high/low and how much I use through trial and error. Nothing matters more than how the racket feels in your hand when on the court. Generally that produces the best results. Of course, when I polarize a racket, I counterbalance before any trial because it just doesn't feel right without at least a little in the buttcap for me.

If you have a general goal in mind, follow that. Then look to fix whatever you did wrong there and try again. Nothing is 100% on the first try. If it is, then you had a pro doing the job for you, and he read your mind and knows you and your game far better than maybe even God. (Or you gave him an excellent description of what you wanted and he did that for you and you were more than satisfied though the truth is that it's still maybe 80% of what it could be.) If you're going without a goal though, you'll be adding lead slowly but in the end you'll find your exact specs for sure. But I say shoot for something, and see if it's close to what you're looking for, then walk from there. More often than not you should be pleasantly surprised (or at least by the second shot you should).

So what is someone with a 2HBH to do? If the ideal spot on the handle is 7" from the end. That will put it right under your top hand.

Click to expand...

^^^"And 7" above the buttcap can be used by anyone. I personally find anything higher up makes it more difficult on the serve and forehand, but some people can easily handle it, and for them I either suggest more lead at 7" above the buttcap, or stick with the lead higher up at the same amount. Really though, if you play a two handed backhand it shouldn't be that much of a problem. The weight is still closer to the contact point than the buttcap, which will give you more power than putting the weight in the buttcap. And one inch will be noticeable, but probably not huge. 3 or 4 will be pretty big though, depending on how much you put there. I used 10+ grams, so every inch of difference is quite significant to the resulting feel and swingweight."

Yes, excellent info from xFull...So if I understand this correctly, if I were to try to make one of the newer lighter Head Radicals feel like one of the older classic ones heftwise, I would want to put lead tape at 3&9 and top of the handle? I remember reading here how someone was asking what newer racquets would make a good replacement for an older Head Radical and someone else recommended the Liquidmetal Radical, but to add lead tape to it...though they never explained where on the racquet and how much.

Click to expand...

^^^Like I said, need a bit more information as I don't possess these rackets and have no idea what their specs are as well as how they feel and perform on the court. Otherwise I'd spend a free day or two experimenting on them for you and telling you what I found to work for me. Actually... Might take a week unless I do my customizations on the court.

I added power potential, step change in power potential, total change in power potential, and plowthrough index.

The starting spec input boxes will display starting power and plowthrough after you add your first tape locations.

The power is for the center of the racquet and the plowthrough for the center (about 21 inches from the butt end) and for a groundstroke of incoming ball speed of 30 mph and racquet tip speed of 65 mph.

BE SURE TO CHECK ALL THE UNITS INPUT RADIO BUTTONS TO MATCH YOUR INPUT NUMBERS OR YOU WILL GET CRAZY RESULTS.

OK, so I took my stock Yonex RDiS 300 and did the "depolarized" thing.....

Replaced the grip with a Gamma Tech Gel grip (which adds 10g), added 8g's to 3/9 and added 6 grams to 7" above butt end and now its got a 345g's static weight and is 7 pts HL. I will measure the SW tommorow, but I would guess it to be about 335.

OK, so I took my stock Yonex RDiS 300 and did the "depolarized" thing.....

Replaced the grip with a Gamma Tech Gel grip (which adds 10g), added 8g's to 3/9 and added 6 grams to 7" above butt end and now its got a 345g's static weight and is 7 pts HL. I will measure the SW tommorow, but I would guess it to be about 335.

Remember, power potential is the percent of impact speed (ball speed plus racquet speed) returned by the racquet. Plowthrough Index is the percent of racquet speed at the impact location (center of racquet) that is retained by the racquet after impact (i.e., "plowthrough"). (If you aren't familiar with all the power tools—power potential, shot speed, sweet spot zones, shot distance, hittingweight, plowthrough, racquet head speed—we have a video tutorial that gives an overview of all these by going to http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-bin/comparepower.cgi and clicking "video tutorial" in the lower left corner of the page.